Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum
Luc Janssens

2016 Revell Germany, new releases

Recommended Posts

Doees anyone know if they're going to still release the 1/8 65 corvette stingray ? It was on Amazon for pre order but now it's gone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes they are, they had a built up one on the Revell stand at the ipms nationals last weekend, I'm pretty sure I've seen dealers over here listing them for sale 

Now, to find the Lufthansa blue and yellow paint.  Revell of Germany offers that, but doesn't export it here...

Zero paints have just released both colours

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doees anyone know if they're going to still release the 1/8 65 corvette stingray ? It was on Amazon for pre order but now it's gone. 

I've gotten one, so yes. Check the Big Boyz section.

Edited by The Creative Explorer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pics of the AMG GT in the link. Pretty simplified engine bay, but not a huge issue for me. It'll build up nicer than whoever built the display model.

http://www.revell.de/en/products/mod.../id/07028.html

The 1:1 bay is shrouded almost completely. Other than the hoses, that's it. The turbos and exhausts are up top in the V, and the intakes are outboard where exhausts usually are. Motor type is M177 and M178. I'll see if I can find a pic of my old one. Will add in a bit. Prob resort to google for motor. 

IMG_4279.JPG

IMG_1084.JPG

IMG_4281.JPG

Edited by keyser
Pics and signed plaque is there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doees anyone know if they're going to still release the 1/8 65 corvette stingray ? It was on Amazon for pre order but now it's gone. 

The expected release for the U.S. is in January.  Tower has it listed for $127.95 - but at least the shipping is free :rolleyes:  The hobby shop retail is gonna be $160.

Considering the amount of price gripe that goes on here, I'll be interested to see how many people actually pony up and buy one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plamoz is looking at doing a photo etch and self adhesive chrome set and also alternate wheels for the AMG GT and MacLaren.

Gravity paints also has solar beam yellow for the AMG GT. Fun times ahead.

Ben

Edited by Bennyg
Additional informatiom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A look inside the new revell AMG GT Kit

Begging for money to become a full time model reviewer and builder? The review was good, but really no better than others out there doing the same and holding a regular job besides. I too want somebody else to pay for my hobbies. (Though I'm not really interested in quitting my regular job.) If people start sending me money, I too will buy more kits and start reviewing them on YouTube. Good luck. I hope it works. But, I'm not going to pay for someone else to retire and play all day. Again, review was good. But the begging for money made it the worst review I've ever seen. Sorry.

R. Scott Aho

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Begging for money to become a full time model reviewer and builder? The review was good, but really no better than others out there doing the same and holding a regular job besides. I too want somebody else to pay for my hobbies. (Though I'm not really interested in quitting my regular job.) If people start sending me money, I too will buy more kits and start reviewing them on YouTube. Good luck. I hope it works. But, I'm not going to pay for someone else to retire and play all day. Again, review was good. But the begging for money made it the worst review I've ever seen. Sorry.

R. Scott Aho

 

 

Are you seriously that misinformed or are you just trolling Tom?

Patreon accounts are not "begging for money", they are a monthly subscription service that YouTube Content Creators can use to supplement their revenue stream, and/or offset the losses from the YouTube Google AdSense when people use various Ad blockers.  Tom's account happens to be set up with 6 levels of subscription from a $1/mo up to $250/mo.  I'm guessing you're not an actual viewer of Tom's YouTube channel because in addition to a brief out of the box review of a given kit he then does a multi-part build review of each kit.  He's a very skilled builder, and I'd not hesitate to say that any video build series he does of a kit is must see "TV" if you are planning to build the same kit yourself.  Beyond that Tom has the largest channel in terms of subs and views in the automotive modeling realm, to meet his Patreon goal he just needs a couple hundred  of the 23k+ people subbed to his channel to chip in some support.

You also clearly have no idea how much time, effort and work goes into making any type of content that is even mildly watchable.  The ability of Tom or anyone else that has the dream of being a full time YouTube content creator has nothing to do with "retiring and playing all day", it become your full time JOB.  Even my weekly show between research, show prep, recording the video, post production editing, and uploading takes 10-15 hours a week.  Based on the content Tom puts out, he probably coming close to working full time hours to provide FREE stuff that you then lambast because he dares offer even MORE content in exchange for revenue.

Do you subscribe to MCM or SA?  Is Gregg (or Jim Haught) retired and playing from the subscription money he gets for the magazine, or does he work full time providing content in exchange for revenue?  Your incomprehensible rudeness is flabbergasting.  If you want to support Tom you subscribe to his Patreon, if you don't like the idea, you ignore his "begging" and do nothing.  Yet you apparently couldn't keep your "mouth" shut and had to blather out another irrelevant opinion (which is pretty much all you do on here - tell people what you will and won't spend your money on like any of us give the slightest wit about that) and insult someone in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James you maybe right. I maybe an ass in this case. At the same time I didn't like it. The begging for money from subscribers in that particular video. I have never heard of Tom or seen any of his videos before this on YouTube. I've seen people asking for one to subscribe to their videos before. But, to ask for money directly like he did. I found it more than a little bit tacky. There are plenty of people doing good reviews and builds on YouTube without asking for cent. I would assume (and assuming can be a great mistake) that if your videos are that good. And you have so many susbscribers. That some commercial account could step in, and support you with advertisements or something else. Again, am I'm being a jerk about this? Maybe. Somehow I don't think so or really care. It's my opinion and right or wrong. I'm privileged to have it. As are you. Your also free to send him as much money as you want.

R. Scott Aho

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Patreon is pretty common in the world of podcasts.  It's the listener/viewer supported content model for funding the production--  media content isn't created for free, the listener/viewer supported approach has become a pretty common alternative to advertising supported content.  

Edited by Rob Hall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James you maybe right. I maybe an ass in this case. At the same time I didn't like it. The begging for money from subscribers in that particular video. I have never heard of Tom or seen any of his videos before this on YouTube. I've seen people asking for one to subscribe to their videos before. But, to ask for money directly like he did. I found it more than a little bit tacky. There are plenty of people doing good reviews and builds on YouTube without asking for cent. I would assume (and assuming can be a great mistake) that if your videos are that good. And you have so many susbscribers. That some commercial account could step in, and support you with advertisements or something else. Again, am I'm being a jerk about this? Maybe. Somehow I don't think so or really care. It's my opinion and right or wrong. I'm privileged to have it. As are you. Your also free to send him as much money as you want.

R. Scott Aho

 

Except that Tom and the other "people doing good reviews" have their video monetization turned on, so whether or you like it, you are paying them just by watching their videos.

And sure you could turn a major channel into a "Free Swagorama" by trying to lure model companies to send you products to review, however that just begets the same problem that MCM and SA have.  They can't do honest reviews of products, because if the company doesn't feel the review is glowing enough they will simply pull their support.  SA has gone on the record this week via Mr. Haught's posting on that other forum as saying if the  kit is so subpar that the review is too negative, or the kit is "unbuildable" they simply do not run the review. 

I haven't sent any money to Tom, but as a Content Creator I will defend his right to attempt to add additional revenue streams to his projects against such outlandish attacks that call him begging and his reviews bad because you don't understand how the system works on the platform. 

P.S. Tom's Patreon is a very recent development.  If he doesn't put this information to his viewers, just how are they supposed to know it exists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you Americans were into entrepreneurs and as we say in Australia, people "having a go". 

 

Good work Tom. Keep it up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... the same problem that MCM and SA have.  They can't do honest reviews of products, because if the company doesn't feel the review is glowing enough they will simply pull their support.  SA has gone on the record this week via Mr. Haught's posting on that other forum as saying if the  kit is so subpar that the review is too negative, or the kit is "unbuildable" they simply do not run the review. 

 

I understand this is a widely held view about kit buildups and reviews in the magazines.  

As some of you know, I contribute "expanded kit reviews" for SA, and though I no longer currently do regular (e.g. one page) kit reviews there, I have done so in the past for that mag as well.  

While sometimes the Editor has mildly altered my text for what is in his judgment improved comprehension or page space issues, I don't EVER recall him editing out my negative comments or constructive criticism about the kits I review.  If that ever did occur, I would never do another review there.  Also, I have NEVER had a kit review omitted in the mag because of it being too negative (I saw the Editor's comments this week on the other board, but it has never happened to me personally.)  

I can't speak for MCM as I generally don't do straight buildups of new kits there, but I have done buildups of historic kits (such as the Surf Woody, the XR-6/Tub Double Kit, the Uncertain T), and again, I don't ever recall my negative comments being omitted in the final article.  

Of course, many others do kit reviews for magazines; I can't speak to their experiences, but the above are mine.

Just wanted to convey my own personal experiences here.....TIM .  

Edited by tim boyd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As another content creator for Youtube, I have no issue's with what Tom is doing and  he is just playing the Youtube game in its currnt form and trust me, he is not the only one.   And Niteowl has done a great job at explaining how it all works, and brings up an interesting point I want to comment on.

And that is getting products for free to review, and he is very much correct that you risk having the company(s) pulling support if you dont do a glowing review,  that is just how that game is played too,  and at the same time, that can also make the reviewer a bit bias towards the company(s) and then no longer offering a 100% un-bias review, and than what good is that review is they are going to blow smoke up your rear end, to me, that is not worth the paper its printed on.

Ive done a handful of product reviews video's and all the products expect one was paid for with my own money, and the one that was free was sent to me to try out, not for doing a review,  the review of said product was my idea.   While I would love to get free products to review, I wont accept them if I can not do a honest review, good or bad. 

Edited by martinfan5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonathon's comment about getting free kits and having that influence a review in the hopes of continuing to get more free kits, is a legitimate area for further discussion.  

During the years I did my monthly Modeler's Corner column for Street Rodder (1978-1995), I was placed (at their determination) on comp kit lists by several of the model companies.  When I ended that my editorship of that column in 1995, most of the companies dropped me from their comp list.  Since then, probably 95% or more of my kit purchases have been with my own dollars.  

Thus, for the last twenty years, most of the articles I do are with kits I have paid for; today I generally purchase these at one of three businesses I frequent for such purchases - The Model Cave in Ypsilanti, MI, SpotlightHobbies.com,, and Nankin Hobbies in Farmington Hills, MI along with occasional purchases from other suppliers such as HobbyLink Japan or eBaycom and Amazon.com retailers.  As an example, the articles I did on the Revell '30 Ford Coupe in the current and the upcoming April 2017 issues of one of the magazines, were purchased by me at Nankin Hobby and the Model Cave - not provided for free by Revell.    

On the other hand, the occasional  "kit previews" I post at my Fotki site typically are provided at their discretion by the Model Companies at no cost to me, as the kits are not yet in the distribution channels. I have generally tried to disclose this fact in the texts that accompany my on-line previews, and perhaps need to be sure that I ALWAYS do that.  (By the way, I never make any promises to the model companies that I will do an on-line review if they send me a kit.  It is entirely my own determination, based in part on whether someone else has already posted an on-line review that covers the subject.)  Finally, I no longer do one-page assembled kit reviews but at the time I did so, the kits I reviewed came from the magazine that published the reviews, not the model company itself.  

Again, while I cannot speak for others, model kits at no charge is a nice gesture by the companies. But personally I would NEVER compromise my own integrity by giving a model kit a better-than-I-think-deserved review.  Having been involved in varying degrees in the industry itself since the mid 1970's, perhaps I understand better than most the challenges faced by the model companies in bringing products to market, and I am also a relentless cheerleader for the hobby itself, and so I may take a more positive attitude as a whole about the model kit industry and its products than other reviewers and participants in the hobby, but nothing is more valuable than the truth about kits as I, and indeed, all of us, see it.

And I do think being more clear about the source of kits that are reviewed. whether it be in magazines, websites, club newsletters, or YoutTube videos, would be a plus for the hobby.  

TIM 

Edited by tim boyd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why "if they get kits from model companies they'll give good reviews" keeps coming up. I regularly read a number of 1:1 car magazines including Evo, Top Cear and Car, and I read Car & Driver online pretty regularly. All their cars are provided by the press offices of the car companies for long and short term tests (with the exception of Ferrari, which doesn't like have a LaFerrari tested head to head with a P1 and 918, so that review required one borrowed from a friendly owner...). I don't see any sign of writers and reviewers pulling their punches or ignoring the defects that they find. And those magazines get a good chunk of their money from car company advertising. Why would it be any different in the world of hobbies, where the stakes are, let's face it, rather lower...?

bestest,

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...